[env-trinity] Take ‘twin’ out of tunnels?

[Tom Stokely]

Take ‘twin’ out of tunnels?
By Alex Breitler Record Staff Writer Posted Oct 29, 2017 at 1:00 PMUpdated Oct 29, 2017 at 9:28 PMIn the Delta region, the twin tunnels always have been considered double trouble.If you take the “twin” out, you’ve still got trouble.That’s the view of many local activists as speculation grows that Gov. Jerry Brown’s two-tunnel water conveyance project will soon be downsized, whittled down to perhaps just one tunnel with a smaller capacity.“I just think it’s really important for people to understand that the battle really isn’t over,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, head of Stockton-based Restore the Delta. “We do not believe that less evil is better than more evil.”A leading Brown administration official said last week that such a scaling back is “quite a possibility” if the $17 billion needed to build the full project isn’t available. Right now, the effort is billions of dollars short because San Joaquin Valley farmers have declined to pay their share, which is nearly half of the total cost.A smaller tunnel or tunnels could be built to serve primarily urban areas of the state like Southern California, the Central Coast and the Silicon Valley, giving them not necessarily more water than they receive today but a more reliable supply than what they get directly from the environmentally vulnerable and flood-prone Delta.Getting smaller...


Shrinking over time‒ The peripheral canal of the 1970s and early 1980s would have carried 22,000 cubic feet per second of water, enough to swallow the entire Sacramento River. The canal on its path across the Delta, however, would have released some of that water into side channels, an advantage that the Delta tunnels cannot claim.‒ A smaller 15,000 cfs canal was rekindled in 2006 under the Schwarzenegger administration as water exports began to decline due to endangered species concerns.‒ In 2012, the Brown administration announced it would focus its efforts on a pair of tunnels totaling 9,000 cfs, just 40 percent the size of the original canal.‒ Now, there is talk of downsizing the project to 6,000 cfs or lower because some of the water districts that must pay for the $17 billion project are unwilling to participate.It wouldn’t be the first time that the decades-old project shrank in scope. The infamous peripheral canal, which would have served basically the same purpose as the tunnels, was sized to carry 22,000 cubic feet per second of water, almost enough to divert the average annual flow of the entire Sacramento River. The canal was defeated by voters in a 1982 referendum.When the canal was resurrected by the Schwarzenegger administration, it was sized at 15,000 cfs. Then, in 2012, the project (now in the form of tunnels) was slashed to 9,000 cfs. And now, perhaps, it will get even smaller.But opponents remain skeptical, arguing that even a tunnel as small as 3,000 cfs could be large enough to harm the Delta during the most critically dry years, depending on how it is operated. During the most recent severe drought, the state temporarily loosened water quality standards in the Delta to store more water in upstream reservoirs; what is to stop some future governor from doing the same, maximizing the use of even a small tunnel, opponents ask?“It looks politically or publicly more difficult to oppose a smaller and smaller facility, but our analysis suggests we’d still be damaged,” said John Herrick, an attorney for south Delta farmers, who benefit from the current plumbing system that draws fresh Sacramento River water past their farms to enormous export pumps near Tracy.While state officials have focused their efforts for years on the 9,000 cfs project, their environmental reports include two smaller options: a 6,000 double-tunnel alternative as well as a single tunnel at 3,000 cfs.
The reports acknowledge that both of the smaller choices could have a detrimental effect on water quality, though likely to a lesser extent. Some of the higher quality Sacramento River water that flows through the Delta today still would be replaced by dirtier, polluted flow from the heavily diverted San Joaquin River. The amount of water allowed to flow through the Delta to San Francisco Bay would decline over time, with seawater encroaching into the western Delta as a result.Critics have other concerns, as well. The existing plan is for three large water intakes to be built on the Sacramento River to feed the tunnels. A reduction in the number of intakes, they worry, could concentrate impacts and make it harder for migrating fish to swim upstream, despite the smaller overall capacity.A tunnel that is built to, say, half the size doesn’t necessarily mean half the impacts, said Osha Meserve, a Sacramento attorney who represents north Delta landowners.“As a political matter it’s easy for people to say, ‘Break it in half,’ ” she said. “But it’s not necessarily proportional.”Any room for compromise?San Joaquin County’s longstanding position, affirmed most recently in 2012, is to oppose any kind of so-called “isolated conveyance,” which in wonky talk means taking water that would flow naturally through the Delta and placing it in a separate bypass instead.In an interview last week, Supervisor Chuck Winn gave no indication that the county’s position is likely to change. He believes all the talk about the tunnels diverts attention and resources away from other alternatives that could make distant regions of the state more self-sufficient.“We get off track and talk about the tunnels — or the tunnel — and we lose an opportunity to collaborate on the ultimate goal, to make California a world-class (water delivery) system,” he said.Not all of the skeptics have given a blanket “no” to some form of new conveyance. Several years ago, a coalition of environmental and business groups pitched a plan that included a single 3,000 cfs tunnel, with the billions of dollars in savings being invested in other local and regional projects.The proposal also included requirements that the tunnel be operated in a way that reduces diversions from the Delta — a potential sticking point even if officials now do decide to go small, said Doug Obegi, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the organizations that promoted the so-called “portfolio” plan.Size isn’t all that matters, Obegi said.“You could have a huge facility that only operates during the very wettest event, and a small facility that operates all the time, and have wildly different impacts,” he said. “Size is important because it affects the cost and your potential to do even more damage, but it’s really how it’s operated that counts.”Bang for their buckIt’s unclear that water officials would be willing to go that small anyway. Last month, officials with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California discussed the potential to drop from 9,000 cfs to 6,000 cfs, saying that would slash the cost of the project proportionately to about $10 billion.“Two-thirds the size of the project at two-thirds of the cost, that would be fairly effective,” General Manager Jeff Kightlinger said at the time.Going smaller than that, however, is likely to be less cost-effective for the water users who must pay for the project, he said.A smaller tunnel also would make it harder for officials to divert large quantities of water during very wet years, like last winter, when it can be taken with less risk to the environment. That is part of the whole point of the project.In a sense, the entire discussion about whether a smaller tunnel or tunnels is preferable for Delta communities is premature. The state has announced no changes, though Natural Resources Secretary John Laird has called downsizing a possibility.“We’re just all taking a deep breath,” he told a group of Southern California business leaders Thursday. “We will have intense conversations with everybody that voted to (participate in the tunnels) about what project we can agree to that we move ahead on.”Starting over?If the project is downsized, opponents are prepared to argue that careful new environmental review will be required, as well as a reboot of long and tedious hearings that have been underway before state water right regulators for more than a year. Asked if that proceeding would have to start over, a spokesman for the State Water Resources Control Board said it was premature to respond since no changes have been proposed.Brown has just 15 months left in his term as governor. In his comments Thursday, Laird downplayed any potential delay.“It’s our hope,” he said, “that with a bare minimum of any redoing of environmental work, that whatever project is agreed to really fits the alternatives that have been done already so that we’re not going back to ‘Go.’”Contact reporter Alex Breitler at (209) 546-8295 or abreitler at recordnet.com. Follow him at recordnet.com/breitlerblog and on Twitter @alexbreitler.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20171030/290ec2d0/attachment.html>